Obama Wins Debate Factchecking

Star

Gold Member
Apr 5, 2009
2,532
614
190
Romney Goes On Offense, Pays For It In First Wave Of Fact Checks


by Mark Memmott and Scott Montgomery


In their first of three debates, President Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney "traded barbs" and stretched some facts, say the nonpartisan watchdogs at PolitiFact.com.

Similarly, the researchers at the Annenberg Public Policy Center's FactCheck.org found examples of truth-stretching by both men.

Overall, it was a debate packed with facts, a wonk's delight. From the very first remarks, with President Obama saying 5 million jobs have been created in the private sector over the last 30 months, the debate was very number focused. So there were some things to check. And because Romney made more factual assertions, he's getting dinged more — at least in the early hours after the debate — by the fact checkers.
Here a sample of what's being reported about the truthiness of what Obama and Romney had to say Wednesday night on stage at the University of Denver:
— One of the biggest disputes was over tax cuts. Obama argued that Romney's plan to stimulate the economy includes a tax cut totaling $5 trillion that, Obama said, isn't possible because the Republican nominee is also promising to spend money in other places.

Romney flatly disputed that number. "First of all, I don't have a $5 trillion tax cut," he said.

Who's right? The Washington Post's Fact Checker says the facts on this one are on Obama's side. The New York Times notes that Romney "has proposed cutting all marginal tax rates by 20 percent — which would in and of itself cut tax revenue by $5 trillion."

FactCheck.org has weighed in too, tweeting during the debate that "Romney says he will pay for $5T tax cut without raising deficit or raising taxes on middle class. Experts say that's not possible."

PolitiFact has given a "mostly true" rating to the charge that "Romney is proposing a tax plan "that would give millionaires another tax break and raise taxes on middle class families by up to $2,000 a year."

— Has the president put in place a plan that would cut Medicare benefits by $716 billion? Romney says yes. The president says no. According to PolitiFact, Romney's charge is "half true."

"That amount — $716 billion — refers to Obamacare's reductions in Medicare spending over 10 years, primarily paid to insurers and hospitals," says PolitiFact. So there is a basis for the number. But, it adds, "the statement gives the impression that the law takes money already allocated to Medicare away from current recipients," which is why it gets only a "half true" rating.

The New York Times writes that Obama "did not cut benefits by $716 billion over 10 years as part of his 2010 health care law; rather, he reduced Medicare reimbursements to health care providers, chiefly insurance companies and drug manufacturers. And the law gave Medicare recipients more generous benefits for prescription drugs and free preventive care like mammograms."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
c3EEY.jpg
 
Romney: “I’m not going to cut education funding. I don’t have a plan to cut education funding.”

Trip Gabriel at The New York Times notes that, contrary to this statement, Mitt Romney has suggested in the past that he would, in fact, cut the education budget. Back in the spring, reporters heard Romney tell a group of Florida donors that, as president, he would merge another federal agency with the Education Department, “or perhaps make it a heck of a lot smaller.” While the Romney-approved House budget does not specify how cuts would affect particular federal programs, the White House’s own study (PDF) on the budget finds that it drops 200,000 children from Head Start as well as other early education programs, and gets rid of 38,000 teachers and aides at underprivileged schools as well as 27,000 special-education teachers.
 
lets look at the tax cut, how do they know it's gonna cost $5 trillion? I love these kinds of figures...it's all bullshit....These are the same people that give us numbers that NEVER work out how they say.....because liberals think everything runs in a vaccum.....but say 3% growth....it's not even close to that
 
lets look at the tax cut, how do they know it's gonna cost $5 trillion? I love these kinds of figures...it's all bullshit....These are the same people that give us numbers that NEVER work out how they say.....because liberals think everything runs in a vaccum.....but say 3% growth....it's not even close to that

If your figures are bullshit, then your figures would have to be bullshit too. Personally, if I have to choose, I'll take the bullshit derived from thorough analysis than the bullshit you pull out of your ass because it's politically expedient.
 
lets look at the tax cut, how do they know it's gonna cost $5 trillion? I love these kinds of figures...it's all bullshit....These are the same people that give us numbers that NEVER work out how they say.....because liberals think everything runs in a vaccum.....but say 3% growth....it's not even close to that

If your figures are bullshit, then your figures would have to be bullshit too. Personally, if I have to choose, I'll take the bullshit derived from thorough analysis than the bullshit you pull out of your ass because it's politically expedient.


This from the leftwinger saying he's in the middle, maybe the middle of a homo sandwhich


But do tell me......what analysis.....these guys are wrong ALL the time....I dont remember any of these genius' saying how bad Obama's economic policies would end up being...hmmmmmmmm
 
This from the leftwinger saying he's in the middle

No, the problem is that you're a deranged wing nut whose lost any attachment to reality. If I was a left winger, I'd be voting for Obama next month, but I'm not. If I was a left winger, I'd support softening our immigration laws, but I don't. If I was a left winger I'd support restrictive gun laws (maybe even outlawing guns altogether), but I don't.


maybe the middle of a homo sandwhich

And this perfectly demonstrates your complete lack of substance on this discussion.

But do tell me......what analysis.....these guys are wrong ALL the time.

Do you even know which "these guys" you are talking about? No, I didn't think so.
 
This from the leftwinger saying he's in the middle

No, the problem is that you're a deranged wing nut whose lost any attachment to reality. If I was a left winger, I'd be voting for Obama next month, but I'm not. If I was a left winger, I'd support softening our immigration laws, but I don't. If I was a left winger I'd support restrictive gun laws (maybe even outlawing guns altogether), but I don't.


maybe the middle of a homo sandwhich

And this perfectly demonstrates your complete lack of substance on this discussion.

But do tell me......what analysis.....these guys are wrong ALL the time.

Do you even know which "these guys" you are talking about? No, I didn't think so.


Ok genius, show me all the times these fact checkers and analysts were on the money?
These guys predicted in the 60s medicare would be $10 billion by the end of the 80s, ooooops it was $1 trillion..so only off by a 100 times

I'm sorry I dont buy projections of this mad money.... because things arent in a vaccum.... How do you prject out 10 years, 20 years, ect?.What conditions caused this $5 trillion debt? same growth rate as now?
 
Why is factcheck.org doing studies based upon a $5 trillion tax cut? Romney stated how many times that that is not his plan and there is nothing anyone can point to that says that's the case. That's just pathetic.
 
This from the leftwinger saying he's in the middle

No, the problem is that you're a deranged wing nut whose lost any attachment to reality. If I was a left winger, I'd be voting for Obama next month, but I'm not. If I was a left winger, I'd support softening our immigration laws, but I don't. If I was a left winger I'd support restrictive gun laws (maybe even outlawing guns altogether), but I don't.




And this perfectly demonstrates your complete lack of substance on this discussion.

But do tell me......what analysis.....these guys are wrong ALL the time.

Do you even know which "these guys" you are talking about? No, I didn't think so.


Ok genius, show me all the times these fact checkers and analysts were on the money?
These guys predicted in the 60s medicare would be $10 billion by the end of the 80s, ooooops it was $1 trillion..so only off by a 100 times

I'm sorry I dont buy projections of this mad money.... because things arent in a vaccum.... How do you prject out 10 years, 20 years, ect?.What conditions caused this $5 trillion debt? same growth rate as now?

And yet, after saying all of that, you still think your numbers are somehow more relevant.
 
If Romney cuts taxes by 20%, cuts spending by 30% and creates 12 million jobs, or however many he's claiming, would that not increase revenue?

I'm asking this question because I don't know and wondering if anyone does.
 
No, the problem is that you're a deranged wing nut whose lost any attachment to reality. If I was a left winger, I'd be voting for Obama next month, but I'm not. If I was a left winger, I'd support softening our immigration laws, but I don't. If I was a left winger I'd support restrictive gun laws (maybe even outlawing guns altogether), but I don't.




And this perfectly demonstrates your complete lack of substance on this discussion.



Do you even know which "these guys" you are talking about? No, I didn't think so.


Ok genius, show me all the times these fact checkers and analysts were on the money?
These guys predicted in the 60s medicare would be $10 billion by the end of the 80s, ooooops it was $1 trillion..so only off by a 100 times

I'm sorry I dont buy projections of this mad money.... because things arent in a vaccum.... How do you prject out 10 years, 20 years, ect?.What conditions caused this $5 trillion debt? same growth rate as now?

And yet, after saying all of that, you still think your numbers are somehow more relevant.


AGain, these experts dont know shit....this is why social science isnt science...it's bullshit

To me any projection over 1 year, is a total guess and a joke...it's like the old where do you see yourself in 5 years.....although that has more usefullness
 
But who will fact check the ones claiming to be fact checkers? This is a huge scam and it's amazing that people automatically trust organizations that claim to be neutral.

There's a few things you might want to know about this group that is almost always siding with liberals.

Annenberg Public Policy Center is the agency behind the misnamed "Factcheck". The APPC is funded by none other than the Annenberg Foundation that a guy named Barack Obama was the founding Chairman of the Board for and his buddy, Bill Ayers, worked along side of him.

If you trust an organization that a domestic terrorist and current liberal WH occupant were heavily involved in, go ahead. I will do my own research. I suspect that FactCheck gets their information from Obama's campaign website or the government site.

Where were these fact checkers the last few weeks when Obama was outright lying about the death of our Libyan ambassador?
 
Last edited:
If Romney cuts taxes by 20%, cuts spending by 30% and creates 12 million jobs, or however many he's claiming, would that not increase revenue?

I'm asking this question because I don't know and wondering if anyone does.


That's why these projections are bullshit....they are in a vaccum and dont anticipate stuff.....it's so complex that all these numbers are monopoly money.....noone knows the real answer

But I do think it will help growth and that will help taxes....more people working...means more pay taxes...and voila!
 
lets look at the tax cut, how do they know it's gonna cost $5 trillion? I love these kinds of figures...it's all bullshit....These are the same people that give us numbers that NEVER work out how they say.....because liberals think everything runs in a vaccum.....but say 3% growth....it's not even close to that
Well, it's true it is a projection, but so are all of Willard"s claims.

They get the 5 trillion by taking the projected average income tax revenue for the next 10 years, about 2.5 trillion per year, and divide by 5, Willard's 20% across the board tax cut, and then multiply by 10 years.
 

Forum List

Back
Top